Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Subhash Balaji Kaibande on 3 July, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
cria328.00
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.328 OF 2000
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station,
Purna, Dist-Parbhani.
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
Subhash s/o Balaji Kalbande,
Age-25 years, Occu:Agri.,
R/o-Mamdapur, Tq-Purna,
Dist-Parbhani.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.R.V. Dasalkar, A.P.P. for Appellant- State.
Mr.R.N. Chavan Advocate with Mr. Vijay Sharma
Advocate for Respondent.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 22ND JUNE, 2017.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 3RD JULY, 2017.
JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:
1. This Appeal is preferred by the State
challenging the Judgment and order dated 19th
cria328.00
April, 2000, passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No.124 of 1999,
thereby acquitting original accused No.1/
Respondent - Subhash s/o Balaji Kalbande from the
offence punishable under Section 498-A and 302,
and Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (in short "I.P. Code").
2. The prosecution case, in nut-shell, is as
under :-
A) The informant Digamber s/o Vithoba Hilal,
a teacher resident of Khambegaon, Tq-Loha, Dist-
Nanded had lodged complaint in the police station,
Purna on 28th April, 1999 complaining that his
second daughter namely, Meerabai was given in
marriage before two years to one Subhash Balaji
Kalbande of village Mamdapur, Tq-Purna, Dist-
Parbhani. At the time of marriage, Subhash was
serving as a teacher in some private institution
but he was not getting full salary there, so he
wanted to start side business of purchasing
cria328.00
cotton. Therefore, he was asking his wife to bring
Rs.40,000/- from her father. His parents, brothers
and brother's wife all were ill-treating the
deceased Meerabai since her marriage. Parents were
saying that they did not get a good daughter-in-
law. Mother-in-law used to say that Meerabai does
not cook good, she gives reverse replies. Father-
in-law and sister-in-laws were saying that she can
not work in the field, and by using such teasing
words and taunts they use to give cruel treatment
to her. Every time his daughter Meerabai was
demanding him amount. Informant Digamber further
alleged that three-four times, Subhash had
demanded him amount by coming to his village but
he had not given him any amount.
B) On 27th April, 1999 at about 5.00 p.m.
one person from Mamdapur had come and informed to
the informant Digamber that his daughter Meerabai
died and he went away. Then the informant and
persons from the village went to Mamdapur. They
reached in the field of the accused about 8.00
cria328.00
or 9.00 p.m. There he saw the dead body of his
daughter. There was bleeding through an injury on
her head. From other relatives in that village, he
learnt that on that day all other family members
in the house of the accused except Meerabai and
her husband had gone out of station for attending
some marriage. Meerabai and her husband Subhash
had gone to the field and at about 12.00 noon
there was talk in the village about her death,
therefore, he complained that in the afternoon
Subhash must have killed Meerabai by assaulting
her by stick or stone on her head as the informant
did not give the amount demanded by Subhash. On
such complaint, police registered the crime.
Complaint was lodged at about 4.15 a.m.
Immediately, P.S.I. Gadekar taking investigation
to himself, rushed to village Mamdapur, he went to
the field of the accused. He saw the dead-body of
Meerabai in the tin-shade. He made inquest
panchnama and sent the dead body for postmortem.
He carried out spot panchnama. The spot was shown
by the accused Subhash, it was near the water-tank
cria328.00
which was near the Akhada in the field. On the
spot, he found one wooden hammer called "Mogri"
which was having blood stains, one plastic gunny
cloth called "Chawale", it was also having blood
stains, four stones were also seized from the
spot, as it was having blood stains. He found
blood fallen on the ground on the spot, so he
seized blood mixed mud and other mud sample from
the spot under the spot panchnama. Then he
arrested the accused Subhash and Suresh in that
evening. He recorded statement of witnesses.
C) It is the further case of the prosecution
that on 1st May, 1999 accused Subhash while in
custody gave statement that he had kept the
"Janole", by which he had hit his wife and killed
her on the Mandav in the field and was ready to
produce it, so his memorandum statement was
recorded. Then accused Subhash led the police and
panchas to his field and produced one wooden
"Janole" (a wooden part of the plough). It was
seized under panchnama. Thereafter, again on 5th
cria328.00
May, 1999 accused Subhash stated before panchas
while in custody that he was ready to give the
Banyan which he was wearing at the time of the
incident and which he has kept in the Kud of the
Mandav. Accordingly, his memorandum statement was
recorded and then he led police and panchas to his
field and produced one Banyan kept in the Kud of
the Mandav, which was having blood stains. It was
seized under panchnama.
D) While sending the dead-body for
postmortem, police had requested for the blood
sample of the deceased to know her blood group.
Police had also send the accused Subhash to the
medical officer for drawing his blood sample to
know his blood group. Doctor had given the viscera
of the deceased. Police had sent all the seized
articles and articles given by the medical officer
for analysis to C.A. Police obtained postmortem
report wherein doctor had opined the cause of
death as " Due to Haemorrhagic Shock due to head
injury". On receipt of C.A. report, it was
cria328.00
revealed that Muddemal "Janole" and the Banyan
articles recovered at the instance of accused
Subhash were found blood stains of blood group
'AB' which is the blood group of deceased
Meerabai, therefore, concluding that accused
Subhash must have committed murder of Meerabai,
police had preferred the charge-sheet against the
accused for committing offence punishable under
Section 498-A and 302 read with 34 of the I.P.
Code.
E) A charge for an offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 302 read with Section 34 of the
I.P. Code was framed against the accused and the
same was explained to them. The accused persons
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, with
the defence of total denial.
3. After recording the evidence and
conducting full fledged trial, the trial Court
acquitted all the accused i.e. accused Nos.1 to 6
from the offences with which they were charged,
cria328.00
Hence this Appeal is preferred by the State
challenging the acquittal of original accused
No.1- Subhsh s/o Balaji Kalbande.
4. Heard learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State and learned counsel appearing for
Respondent/ accused No.1, at length. With their
able assistance, we have carefully perused the
entire notes of evidence so as to find out whether
the findings recorded by the trial Court are in
consonance with the evidence brought on record or
otherwise.
5. The prosecution examined PW-7 Dr. Babu
Gulab Shaikh. He deposed that he was working as
medical officer, Rural (P.H.C.) Hospital, Purna.
On 28th April, 1999, the witness himself and Dr.
Rodge had performed postmortem examination on the
dead body of Meerabai Kalbande. They had prepared
their postmortem notes Exhibit 43. He deposed that
they observed lacerated wound over head on right
side on occipital region. Its size was 5 cm. X 3
cria328.00
cm. wide X 1/2 cm. deep., oblique irregular
margins, and it was caused by hard and blunt
object. It was ante-mortem wound, the same is
mentioned in Column No.17 of the postmortem notes.
There was evidence of haematoma seen under the
scalp - deep, corresponding wound, size 2 X 2 cm.
It is mentioned in Column No.19/1. Brain matter
was congested. Evidence of haematoma seen under
the brain matter in the occipital region on right
side corresponding to the external injury, size 3
X 3 cm., mentioned in Column No.19(iii) of the
postmortem notes.
. PW-7 Dr. Babu Shaikh further deposed that
the probable cause of death was due to
"haemorrhagic shock due to head injury". There was
no other injury found on the dead body. The
Muddemal Article A "Janole" was shown to him which
was the hard and blunt object. He deposed that the
injury was possible by that instrument, and if a
blow given by the said instrument, same result
would occur. He deposed that patient died because
cria328.00
of the said injury. He had preserved viscera as
per the request of police. Police requested for
obtaining blood of the deceased for determining
the blood group. Accordingly, he had handed over
those articles to police in a sealed condition.
. During the course of cross-examination,
PW-7 Dr. Babu Shaikh stated that Muddemal Article
"Janole" was not shown to him by police at any
time. He stated that in this case death had
occurred within three hours of last meal of
deceased. The death was instantaneously possible
because of the said injury. From injury exact
object cannot be determined and only nature of the
object viz. hard and blunt, that can be
determined. There was no fracture of bone. He
stated that he cannot say if there is single right
oblique injury on occipital region, the same is
possible by fall. The lady was carrying foetus of
26 to 28 weeks. This was advance stage of
pregnancy. He admitted that if one falls
forcefully, on a hard substance, occurrence of
cria328.00
said single injury mentioned in Column No.17 is
also possible.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution has
examined PW-1 Digamber Vithoba. He deposed that
Meerabai (deceased) was his daughter. She was
given in marriage to Subhash Vyankatrao Kalbande.
She died on 27th April, 1999. She was murdered.
Two years prior to it, her marriage with Subhash
took place. After marriage she went for
cohabitation to village Mamdapur, Tq-Purna. When
his daughter went for cohabitation to her
husband's house, that time his parents, brother
Suresh, his wife Nilawati and another brother Ram
used to reside with her husband. His daughter was
ill-treated. The accused were demanding amount
from him, they used to demand Rs.40,000/- for
doing business of cotton. Subhash (accused No.1)
was doing the service in Sanstha and he was not
getting salary and therefore for doing side
business, he was demanding Rs.40,000/- to the
witness. The parents-in-law of Meerabai used to
cria328.00
say that she was not knowing house-hold work,
cooking, and her sister-in-law was also saying
that Meerabai did not work properly in the field.
Her father-in-law used to say that they did not
get a good daughter-in-law. Mother-in-law used to
say that Meerabai gives reverse replies.
Therefore, accused used to give mental cruel
treatment to his daughter. His daughter used to
tell him about the same. Subhash had demanded
Rs.40,000/- from PW-1 Digamber and he made demand
for three times. Subhash had demanded the amount
coming to the village of witness at Khambegaon.
. PW-1 Digamber further deposed that on
27th April, 1999, in the evening one person came
from Mamdapur and told him that Meerabai died.
Therefore, along with relatives and villagers he
went to Mamdapur and from there they went to the
field. His daughter Meerabai was lying dead and
she had sustained injury on her head. Thereafter
he lodged complaint in the police station. He
deposed that Subhash has murdered his daughter.
cria328.00
The other accused also ill-treated his daughter
mentally and they instigated Subhash to commit her
murder.
. During the course of his cross-
examination, PW-1 Digamber admitted that Subhash
is having 10 to 12 acres agricultural land and he
irrigates the said land from Godavarai river.
Subhash is educated upto M.A. B.Ed. He stated that
he did not know if Subhash was getting Rs.4000/-
towards salary and was serving in Laxminagar
school. He stated that he cannot say on what
dates, Subhash had came to him for demanding
amount. During the life time of Meerabai, he had
nowhere lodged any complaint about ill-treatment
which she was facing that time. For the first time
in the complaint he had disclosed about the ill-
treatment to Meerabai. Though his daughter had
told him about the ill-treatment to her and
Subhash had demanded amount, he did not make any
enquiry by going to Mamdapur. He stated that his
daughter was lying dead near the tank of water in
cria328.00
the field. There are stones lying near the tank.
She was lying dead on those stones. His daughter
had sustained only one injury on the backside of
her head. He stated that when they reached to
village Mamdapur, that time the family members of
the house of Subhash were not present there and
they had gone for marriage and had not returned.
Only Subhash and his wife did not go for the
marriage. He stated that he does not know
personally how the incident had occurred.
7. Prosecution has examined PW-2 Suresh
Ramrao Hilal. He deposed that he knows complainant
and his daughter Meerabai. She was given in
marriage at village Mamdapur. His father-in-law's
house is also at Mamdapur. His marriage took place
before four years. He used to visit his in-law's
house at Mamdapur. After the marriage, Meerabai
had gone to her husband's house for cohabitation.
When Meerabai used to come to her father's house,
she used to tell that she was not being treated
well by her in-laws and she was also saying that
cria328.00
her husband was demanding Rs.40,000/- for doing
business.
. PW-2 Suresh further deposed that one day
prior to the incident he had gone to Mamdapur at
the house of his father-in-law. On the next day in
the morning, he had to go for marriage at Asola.
For going to marriage, he was going towards Maroti
temple where the trucks were parked. There Subhash
and Meerabai met him on the way, they were going
towards their field. He asked them to come for
marriage, but Subhash said that they were not
coming for marriage and his brother would attend
the marriage. Then they went away towards the
field. He then went for marriage and after
attending marriage he went to Khambegaon
straightway. There he learnt that Meerabai died.
. During the course of his cross-
examination, PW-2 Suresh stated that Hanumantrao
is his real maternal uncle and also father-in-law.
He was invited for attending the marriage. He
cria328.00
stated that they about 100 persons had gone for
that marriage. The marriage was at about 11.00
a.m. He was knowing all of them but he can
identify 15 out of them. He stated that as he is
driver, he rarely used to reside at his village
and he used to remain on tour and rarely used to
visit the house of Kalbande. The relations between
him and Digrambarrao were good. Digamberrao is his
distant uncle. On the day of incident when Subhash
and Meerabai met him while they were going to
their fields, he had no talks with Meerabai. When
Meerbai and Subhash met him, he did not pay
attention if anybody also was present there. The
way to the field of Subhash is from the Maroti
temple. He stated that about 25 to 30 persons were
there where he met Meerabai near the truck. He
denied the suggestion that his father-in-law
Hanumantrao and accused persons were having
dispute between them and they were on cross-terms
and they were having enmity. He denied that his
father-in-law and he himself had instigated father
of Meerbai to lodge the false complaint.
cria328.00
8. PW-3 Parashram Kerba Hilal is a panch
witness to seizure panchnama of "Janole" recovered
at the instance of accused Subhash. During his
cross-examination, he stated that such instruments
"Janole" are in the village. He stated that
panchnama was not bearing the signature of Subhash
as it was not obtained. PW-4 Eknath Tolba Paul is
a panch to to seizure panchnama of Banyan
recovered at the instance of accused Subhash. PW-5
Santosh Shriprakash Jaiswal, is a police constable
who carried the Muddemal articles in this crime to
Chemical Analyzer, Aurangabad. PW-6 Ramrao Patilba
Gadekar, P.S.I., police station, Purna, was the
investigating officer. He deposed about the manner
in which he has carried out the investigation of
the crime.
9. To prove the allegations of the ill-
treatment, cruelty subjected to Meerabai and the
alleged demand, the prosecution has mainly relied
upon the oral testimony of PW-1 Digamber Vithoba,
cria328.00
father of Meerabai. Upon careful perusal of the
evidence of PW-1 Digamber, it appears that he has
made general allegations that accused persons used
to ill-treat Meerabai on the trifle grounds that
she was unable to cook the food properly and was
not able to do the agricultural work properly and
so on. Neither any specific date nor specific
incident is mentioned by PW-1 Digamber when
Meerabai was subjected to cruelty. He admitted
that during the life time of Meerabai, he never
filed any complaint about ill-treatment to her,
before any authority, including police. Regarding
the demand also PW-1 Digamber has made general
allegations. No specific date or month has been
mentioned by him when the alleged demand was made.
In his cross-examination, defence has brought on
record that accused Subhash was serving as a
teacher in a school. PW-1 Digamber admitted in his
cross-examination that Subhash is having 10 to 12
acres irrigated agricultural land. Thus, the
defence has brought on record that financial
position of accused Subhash was so sound and
cria328.00
therefore the allegations of demand are not well
founded. The trial Court has rightly observed
that, for the first time the complainant is making
allegations about the harassment to his daughter
by the in-laws, that too are very vague in nature,
not supported by any independent evidence such as
any neighbour of the accused, nor there are any
circumstances to support the version of the
complainant, and in absence of the same, it is
difficult to rely on his testimony in the
circumstances of the case. The trial Court has
further observed that, there is scope to believe
that the informant is making such allegations
because of death of his daughter, as it has come
in the statement of accused No.1 Subhash under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that since two years prior
to the death of his wife he was having permanent
job as a teacher and he was getting salary to the
tune of Rs.4000/-, so he had no reason to demand
any amount to his father-in-law for doing any
business in cotton.
cria328.00
. In this regard, the prosecution has also
relied upon the evidence of PW-2 Suresh Hilal. He
deposed that when Meerabai used to come to her
father's house, she used to tell them that she was
not being treated well by her in-laws. However,
this witness has also made general allegations
about the ill-treatment given to Meerabai and no
any specific incident is stated by him.
Furthermore this witness is relative of PW-1
Digamber and thus is an interested witness. The
defence has brought on record that father-in-law
of this witness and accused were on cross-terms
and therefore possibility of PW-2 Suresh deposing
falsely at the instance of his father-in-law,
cannot be ruled out. The trial Court has rightly
observed that, this witness Suresh was a driver.
He admitted that as he is driver, he rarely used
to reside at village Khambegaon and so chances of
Meerabai telling him about any ill-treatment to
her whenever she visited the house of her father,
are very rare. He could not tell exactly when
Meerabai told so to him and what he did after she
cria328.00
told him about ill-treatment to her.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that on
27th April, 1999 accused Subhash and his wife
Meerabai had gone in the field, and in the field
accused Subhash had assaulted Meerabai on her head
from backside by a wooden part of plough called
"Janole" and due to said head injury, she died on
the spot. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Suresh
Hilal who had lastly seen deceased Meerabai in the
company of accused Subhash when they were
proceeding towards their field. PW-2 Suresh
admitted in his cross-examination that about 25-30
persons were there where he met Meerabai near the
truck, which was going towards Asola village for
marriage. As stated above, this witness PW-2
Suresh is an interested witness. He stated that
about 100 persons has gone for that marriage. But
to prove the 'last seen' theory the prosecution
has examined this solitary witness and there is no
corroboration to the deposition of this witness,
though as per the prosecution case, at the
cria328.00
relevant time so many persons were present when
PW-2 Suresh lastly seen deceased Meerabai in the
company of accused Subhash. PW-2 Suresh stated
that in the morning hours i.e. at about 8.00 to
9.00 a.m. he saw Meerabai in the company of
accused Subhash, and as per the prosecution case,
the alleged incident had taken place at about
12.00 noon. In our considered view, the said time
gap is wide, and therefore said circumstance of
'last seen' cannot be relied upon. The Supreme
Court in the case of Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of
W.B.1, on the basis of the evidence in that case,
in Para 74 of the Judgment, observed that
reasonableness of the time gap is of some
significance. If the time gap is very large, then
it is not only difficult but may not even be
proper for the Court to infer that the accused had
been last seen alive with the deceased and the
former, thus, was responsible for commission of
the offence.
1 (2012) 7 S.C.C. 646
cria328.00
. The Supreme Court in the case Rambraksh
alias Jalim vs. State of Chhatisgarh2 held that, it
is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded
against the accused merely on the ground that the
accused was last seen with the deceased. In other
words, a conviction cannot be based on the only
circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last
seen theory comes into play where the time gap,
between the point of time when the accused and the
deceased were seen last alive and when the
deceased is found dead, is so small that
possibility of any person other than the accused
being the perpetrator of the crime becomes
impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen
together itself would not be sufficient and the
prosecution has to complete the chain of
circumstances to bring home the guilt of the
accused.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Inderjit
Singh and another vs. State of Punjab 3, supra, in
2 A.I.R. 2016 S.C. 2381
3 A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1674
cria328.00
Para-2 of the Judgment held that:-
"2. After giving our careful consideration,
we are unable to agree with the Courts
below. These circumstances are not
sufficient to establish guilt of the
accused. It is well settled that in a case
pending on circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution must establish all the
circumstances by independent evidence and
the circumstances so established must form
a complete chain in proof of guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The
circumstances so proved must also be
consistent only with the guilt of the
accused. Among the circumstances relied
upon by the prosecution, in the light of
these principles we find that except the
circumstance No.1, the other circumstances
are not incriminating. In number of cases
it has been held that the only circumstance
namely that the deceased was last seen in
the company of the accused by itself is not
sufficient to establish the guilt of the
accused. It is no doubt true that
deceased's death was homicidal but since
there is no direct witness connecting any
of the appellants with the crime we should
fall back on the circumstantial evidence
and we are of the view that circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution are hardly
cria328.00
sufficient to establish the guilt of the
accused. The circumstance, i.e. the accused
also had no enmity between the accused and
the deceased and the witness would also
show that the accused also had no enmity
against the deceased. Therefore, this
circumstance is neutral. However, now
coming to the recovery of the gun, the High
Court has acquitted him of that charge. The
only relevant circumstance as pointed above
is that the appellants and the deceased
left the house together in a friendly
manner for bird-shooting. It is needless to
say that no conviction can be passed on
this sole circumstance. In the result, the
convictions and sentences awarded by the
Courts below are set aside. The appeal is
allowed. The appellants be set at liberty."
12. As per the prosecution case, the alleged
incident took place in the field of accused
Subhash and except Meerabai and her husband
accused Subhash, no one was present at the spot of
incident. In this case, there is no independent
eye witness. Since the case in hand is based upon
the circumstantial evidence, it would be gainful
to reproduce herein below the parameters / guiding
cria328.00
factors laid down by the Supreme Court, while
appreciating the circumstantial evidence, in the
case of Hanuman Govind Nargundkar and another Vs.
State of M.P.4, which are consistently followed in
subsequent pronouncements by the Supreme Court and
the various High Courts. In the said judgment, it
is held thus:
"It is well to remember that in cases where
the evidence is of a circumstantial nature,
the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should in the first
instance be fully established, and all the
facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused. Again, the circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to
exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words,
there must be a chain of evidence so far
complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and it must be
such as to show that within all human
probability the act must have been done by
the accused."
4 AIR 1952 SC 343
cria328.00
13. The trial Court has observed that
Meerabai was pregnant and at the relevant time she
was carrying foetus of 26 to 28 weeks. There is
possibility that because of pre-eclamsic-toximia,
she might have got convulsions and had fallen on
stones near the water-tank in the field. It has
come in the spot panchnama that there were stones
near the water-tank and she might have sustained
the said injury and because of bleeding through it
she had gone in shock, this possibility was not
ruled out by the prosecution. The possibility of
accidental death was not wiped out by the
prosecution. The trial Court after considering the
entire evidence brought on record by the
prosecution, held that prosecution had failed to
bring any guilt to any of the accused and
acquitted all the accused persons of the charges
levelled against them.
14. As per the prosecution case, dead body of
Meerabai was found lying on the stones, near water
cria328.00
tank in the field. PW-7 Dr. Babu Shaik admitted in
his cross-examination that, if one falls
forcefully on a hard substance, occurrence of the
said single injury mentioned in Column No.17 of
the post-mortem notes is also possible. Thus the
possibility of accidental death of Meerabai cannot
be ruled out. Upon independent scrutiny and re-
appreciation of entire evidence brought on record
by the prosecution, it clearly emerges that, there
are serious omissions, contradictions and
improvements in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses which goes to the root of the
prosecution case and makes said evidence unworthy
and unreliable. We are therefore of the view that,
the findings recorded by the trial Court are in
consonance with the evidence brought on record by
the prosecution. There is no perversity as such.
The view taken by the trial Court is plausible
view. The Supreme Court in the case of Muralidhar
alias Gidda and another Vs. State of Karnataka 5 in
para 12 held thus:-
5. 2014 [4] Mh.L.J.[Cri.] 353
cria328.00
"12. The approach of the appellate Court
in the appeal against acquittal has been
dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu
Vs.State, AIR 1954 SC 1, Madan Mohan Singh
Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 637, Atley
Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807, Aher
Raja Khima Vs. State of Saurashtra, AIR
1956 SC 217, Balbir Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 216, M.G.Agarwal Vs.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200, Noor
Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1964 SC
286, Khedu Mohton Vs. State of Bihar,
[1970] 2 SCC 450, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
Vs. State of Maharashtra, [1973] 2 SCC 793,
Lekha Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, [1973] 2
SCC 424, Khem Karan Vs. State of U.P.,
[1974] 4 SCC 603, Bishan Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, [1974] 3 SCC 288, Umedbhai
Jadavbhai Vs. Sate of Gujarat, [1978] 1 SCC
228, K.Gopal Reddy Vs. State of A.P.,
[1979] 1 SCC 355, Tota Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, [1987] 2 SCC 529, Ram Kumar Vs.
State of Haryana, 1995 Supp [1] SCC 248,
Madan Lal Vs. State of J & K, [1997] 7 SCC
677, Sambasivan Vs. State of Kerala, [1998]
5 SCC 412, Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of M.P.
[2002] 4 SCC 85, Harijana Thirupala Vs.
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
[2002] 6 SCC 470, C. Antony Vs.
K.G.Raghavan Nair, [2003] 1 SCC 1, State of
cria328.00
Karnataka Vs. K.Gopalakrishna, [2005] 9 SCC
291, State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran,
[2007] 3 SCC 755 and Chandrappa Vs. State
of Karnataka, [2007] 4 SCC 415. It is not
necessary to deal with these cases
individually. Suffice it to say that this
Court has consistently held that in dealing
with appeals against acquittal, the
appellate Court must bear in mind the
following: (i) There is presumption of
innocence in favour of an accused person
and such presumption is strengthened by the
order of acquittal passed in his favour by
the trial court, (ii) The accused person is
entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt
when it deals with the merit of the appeal
against acquittal, (iii) Though, the powers
of the appellate Court in considering the
appeals against acquittal are as extensive
as its powers in appeals against
convictions but the appellate Court is
generally loath in disturbing the finding
of fact recorded by the trial court. It is
so because the trial Court had an advantage
of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If
the trial court takes a reasonable view of
the facts of the case, interference by the
appellate Court with the judgment of
acquittal is not justified. Unless, the
conclusions reached by the trial court are
palpably wrong or based on erroneous view
cria328.00
of the law or if such conclusions are
allowed to stand, they are likely to result
in grave injustice, the reluctance on the
part of the appellate Court in interfering
with such conclusions is fully justified;
and (iv) Merely because the appellate Court
on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the
evidence is inclined to take a different
view, interference with the judgment of
acquittal is not justified if the view
taken by the trial Court is a possible
view. The evenly balanced views of the
evidence must not result in the
interference by the appellate Court in the
judgment of the trial Court."
[Underlines added]
15. Therefore, in the light of discussion
herein above, there is no merit in the Appeal
filed by the State. The Criminal Appeal stands
dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.
[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
asb/JUN17
